Dismissed

Banti Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2021WRIA/7671/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a fresh merit list. The petitioners argued for an appointment in the Civil Police based on this new list, despite being previously selected as Firemen. The Court held that the new list was exclusively for candidates excluded due to whitener/blade usage in OMR sheets and did not apply to already selected candidates.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits. The impugned select list cannot be utilized by candidates who were already selected in the initial merit list.

Banti Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7671 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Banti Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition filed in the month of August 2020, the petitioners seek to challenge the merit/select list declared on 11.11.2019, prepared pursuant to the judgment and order dated 24.7.2019 passed in Special Leave Petition No.20015 of 2018 (Ashish Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P and others).

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners while applying for the post-in-question had given first option for selection in the Civil police whereas in the result declared on 16.7.2015, they were selected as firemen under schedule caste category. The contention is that the petitioner no.1 had obtained 288.084 marks whereas petitioner no.2 obtained 285.105 marks. The cut-off marks of scheduled caste candidates in the list declared on 16.7.2015 has been disclosed in para '8' of the writ petition which is 290.011. It is, thus, clear that both the petitioners could not be selected in the civil police as per the preference given by them, in accordance with the merits.

¶8

The select list dated 11.11.2019 was declared by the respondent in pursuance to the decision of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.20015 of 2018 (Ashish Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P and others) dated 24.7.2019 wherein certain directions had been given for preparation of fresh merit list by including those candidates who were excluded due to use of whitener/blade in the OMR sheet. It was directed by the Apex court that the Board will prepare notional result as per notified vacancies after including all the candidates who had used whitener/blade. It was further directed that a separate list of all such candidates would be prepared who had found place in the notional result, but could not find place in the result declared on 16.7.2015. After preparation of separate list of all such candidates, the State would take steps to accommodate them. The State would appoint only those candidates who were included in the fresh

¶9

notional result prepared by the Board. No other candidates shall have any claim over such appointment. The State could accommodate only those candidates who could have been selected, had they not been excluded from the final result for having used whitener/blade in OMR sheets. Preparation of select list notified by the notice dated 11.11.2019, therefore, was only for those candidates who were excluded from the merit list for the use of whitener /blade.

¶10

The petitioners having been selected in the initial merit list declared on 16.7.2015 cannot be allowed to seek appointment on the basis of the merit list notified/published on 11.11.2019 for claim of their category.

¶11

It is further noteworthy that some of the candidates, who had applied for selection to the post of Constable in UP Police in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.6.2013 had approached this Court to challenge the result declared on 11.11.2019 in Writ A no.158 of 2020 (Anuj Singh and 6 others). The said writ petition has been dismissed on 3.2.2020 with the observation that any interference by this Court with the select list would interfere with the implementation of the direction issued by the Apex Court. It was held that the issues raised by the petitioners therein were not open to be considered by it.

¶12

For the above reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and hence dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Harshita

Banti Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banti Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harsh Anand Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Murari Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Others

H.R Tripathi Vs General Manager North Central 3 Others

Vishnu Dev Mishra Vs Union of India and 8 Others

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others